Capablanca on
his Predecessors

Below is our translation of an article by J.R. Capablanca
published on pages 1-4 of the Uruguayan chess magazine Mundial,
May 1927.

‘The Ideal Style of the Masters;
The Ideal Way of Playing the Game

In each generation there are a few
masters who concentrate the attention of chess aficionados and
critics.
This attention is particularly intensified for the person holding
the world crown. Comments are varied and take on different forms.
The majority of aficionados take note only of results and
base their opinion solely, or almost solely, on the success or
otherwise of the champion. However, a few experts, made up mainly
of the other masters, go into the question in greater depth, and
their opinions are influenced by numerous factors other than
“winning or losing”. Although there are many aspects worthy of
being considered, the experts’ opinions are generally based on the
three following: Depth, Combinative Power and Style. By ’’Depth’’
is meant the level of aptitude for considering possibilities in
difficult positions; in other words, positional judgment.

By “Combinative Power” is meant the
aptitude for seeing clearly through to the end of a combination,
taking advantage of some already-existing chance, or preparing the
combination.

And by “Style” is meant the general
system of play, whether it be simple or complicated, slow and
solid or brilliant and enterprising.

If chess is considered an exact
science it is obvious that there must exist only one correct way
of playing, whatever that is, and it solely remains to find it. If
it is considered an art, then there must be various ways, and the
choice is completely dependent upon the individual characteristics
of the player. He will naturally favour the kind of play in which
his talent is most at home.

The great majority of the chess
public, as well as a smaller majority of experts, look at style
when selecting their preference for the champion of one generation
rather than all the other champions. Beginning with Labourdonnais
and going up to the present incumbent, and including Lasker, we
find that clearly the greatest stylist was Morphy. This is the
reason, though it may not be the only one, why he is generally
acclaimed as the greatest of all. Labourdonnais appears to have
had success in complicated positions involving direct attacks on
the king where superficiality was not excluded. He always sought
this kind of play and practically never played anything else. His
style, therefore, lacked clarity and, often, energy.

Anderssen, a born chessplayer, chiefly
played combinative games. One or two of them are considered the
most beautiful products of all time. But, like his predecessor
Labourdonnais, he was a victim of the general concept of the
period, according to which chess should be played only in that
way. As a result, his play and style lacked coherence and, we may
say, scope.

Steinitz was a better stylist at the
beginning of his career than in his final period. He began as a
brilliant player of open games and finished as a prototype of the
extremely closed style. At some point he must have passed, however
fleetingly, through the stage representing a happy medium, the
perfect type of play.

He was the first person to establish
the basic principles of the real general strategy of the game. He
was also a pioneer as well as one of the most profound
investigators of the hidden truths of chess. At a certain time he
played the openings well, but later he converted his principles
into caprices, thereby lessening his winning chances in serious
battles against some of his most formidable opponents. His
combinative power was very great. He was also a very fine endgame
player, and it is in fact essential to be a strong endgame player
to become world champion. He was very tenacious and in his youth,
when he was playing at the top of his form, he was almost
invincible.

Lasker, natural genius developed by
very hard work in the early part of his career, never adopted a
type of play that could be classified as a defined style. So much
so, in fact, that this has moved some masters to declare that
Lasker is absolutely lacking in style. The truth is that if his
style had to be classified, it could only be termed “indefinite”.
It has been said that he is an individualist, that he plays more
against the player and his defects than against the position of
the pieces. This is true to a certain extent with regard to many
players, and there is perhaps a great part of truth to it in the
case of Lasker, but I do not think that such things can be stated
absolutely. In recent years, when I have had the opportunity to
observe him in some of his games, it has seemed to me that he was
often changing tactics, even against the same player. The defect
of his style is that his play generally seems abnormal. One of the
greatest players during the period when Lasker was champion has
said that there was something mysterious in his play which he
could not understand. On the other hand, Lasker has great
qualities. He is very tenacious. He can defend bad positions
admirably well. In this sense he had so much success during his
long career as champion that finally it was transformed into a
defect which sometimes led him to think that he could defend
positions which really could not have been sustained against
correct play. He could carry an attack through to the end in a way
that very few other players could match.

In endings for a long time he
maintained the reputation of having no equals. If he reached an
ending in which he had a winning advantage, however small, it was
almost a certainty that he would win the game. Very few victories
escaped him in endings. On the other hand, if he had the worse of
it, his opponent could not permit himself the liberty of conceding
him the slightest chance. His combinative power in the middle game
is also very great.

Morphy was a great stylist. In the
opening he aimed to develop all his pieces rapidly. Developing
them and quickly bringing them into action was his idea. In this
sense, from the point of view of style, he was completely correct.
In his time the question of Position was not properly understood,
except by himself. This brought him enormous advantages, and he
deserves nothing but praise. It could be said of him that he was
the forerunner of developments in this extremely important part of
the game. He made a special study of the openings, with such
success that in many games his opponents had an inferior position
after six moves. This is also praiseworthy since in those days he
had little to guide him. Players of the time thought that violent
attacks against the king and other combinations of this kind were
the only things worthy of consideration. It may be said that they
began by making combinations from the first move, without paying
sufficient attention to the question of development, about which
Morphy was extremely careful. His games show that he had an
outstanding playing style. It was simple and direct, without
affectation; he did not seek complications but nor did he avoid
them, which is the real way to play. He was a good endgame player
and proved himself a clever defender of difficult positions. His
combinative power was wholly sufficient for what he undertook, but
it was not, as most players of today think, the most important
aspect of his talent. That was his style, which, as far as could
be judged, was perfect.

It is often said that Morphy is the
strongest player there has ever been. In our judgment such
assertions are absurd, since not only do they lack any basis but
it is in any case impossible to prove them. All that would be
possible is to make comparisons on the basis of his matches, and
according to the strength of his opponents. If we made such
comparisons, the result would be disastrous for the assertions of
the admirers of the great master of the past.

But Morphy was not only doubtless the
strongest player of his period; he was also a creator in chess and
the prototype of what could be called the perfect style. Regarding
the results of his battles, there are various points to consider.
There is one, above all, that is hardly known at all. We refer to
the fact that the great American master never played isolated
games for amusement; every time he played, he put all his
knowledge into the game. In other words, for him any game he
played immediately assumed, so to term it, the proportions of a
match game. We do not believe that any other player has done this.
Consequently, he should be judged only on his great matches,
especially those against Anderssen and Harrwitz. Simply playing
through the games of those two matches will show that they hardly
contain any so-called brilliant combinations.

Contrary to the general belief, which
is the result of ignorance, Morphy’s main strength was not his
combinative power but his positional play and his general style.
The truth is that combinations can be made only when the position
permits it. The majority of the games in these two matches were
won by Morphy in direct and simple fashion and it is this simple
and logical procedure which is the basis of true beauty in chess,
from the point of view of the great masters.

Concerning an oft-repeated declaration
by a large number of admirers, who believe that Morphy would beat
all today’s players, as we have already said, this has no
foundation. On the other hand, if Morphy were resurrected and were
to play immediately only with the knowledge of his time, he would
most certainly be defeated by many present-day masters.
Nevertheless, it is logical to suppose that he would soon be at
the necessary level to compete against the best, but there is no
way of knowing exactly how successful he would be.

There is no doubt that the science of
chess has greatly developed in the past 60 years. Players offer
more resistance every day and the requirements and conditions
necessary to overcome other masters are greater than before. In
short, the ideal way of playing a game would be: rapid development
of the pieces to points of strategic use for attack or defence,
taking into account the fact that the two main elements are Time
and Position.

Calm in defence and decisiveness in
attack. Not exaggerated attention to the possibility of obtaining
any material advantage, since often therein lies victory. Not
seeking complications except in extreme cases, but not refusing
them either. Finally, in a word, being ready to compete in any
kind or phase of play, whether it be the opening, ending or
anything else; the game may be complicated or simple, but it is
the latter path which is to be preferred within the limits
permitted by the two principal elements, Time and Position.’